Barr Campaign Statement on Texas Supreme Court Ruling

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

All we need to know is that you think it's OK to throw the two major candidates off the ballot due to a stupid technicality. That's about as unAmerican and stupid as you can get. Let us look for all the people who support your position --- uh, well, let's see, there's the crazy nuts. Yup, good luck with that. You are on the fringe with PETA and about as relevant.

 

Barr's being kept off the ticket due to this same "technicality". Explain to me how this "promotes democracy."

[Max Fischer]

So even though Bob Barr's suit had grounds in the law of the state in which he presented the case, it was "litigious" and "anti-democratic?"

 

Yup.

 

Aren't you among the same group of people who rant and rave against trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits?

 

Don't know about you but I think trying to get someone or a party thrown off the ballot on trivial technicalities is unAmerican and unless a real harm is demonstrated the decision should always favor democracy.

 

Call me crazy but I think it's important we side with democratic principles rather than callously throw off candidates and parties due to arbitrary deadlines that were clearly NOT the intent of the law. Any sane person could clearly see that.

 

To see it otherwise is the province of fringe and quite frankly anti-democratic (small "d") groups.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yup.

 

Aren't you among the same group of people who rant and rave against trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits?

 

Don't know about you but I think trying to get someone or a party thrown off the ballot on trivial technicalities is unAmerican and unless a real harm is demonstrated the decision should always favor democracy.

 

Call me crazy but I think it's important we side with democratic principles rather than callously throw off candidates and parties due to arbitrary deadlines that were clearly NOT the intent of the law. Any sane person could clearly see that.

 

To see it otherwise is the province of fringe and quite frankly anti-democratic (small "d") groups.

 

OK, then, put Barr on the ticket. If the rule doesn't apply to all, it shouldn't apply to anybody.

[Max Fischer]

Barr's being kept off the ticket due to this same "technicality". Explain to me how this "promotes democracy."

 

I never addressed that question -- and if you read this thread you will clearly see I never said any such thing.

 

But now that you bring it up -- yes, I think Barr and the Libertarians should be on the ballot. I don't know the circumstances as to why he's not.

[Max Fischer]

OK, then, put Barr on the ticket. If the rule doesn't apply to all, it shouldn't apply to anybody.

 

Fine with me. Why isn't Barr on the ballot?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Fine with me. Why isn't Barr on the ballot?

Due to an issue with the same "deadline" that was being challenged here.

[Max Fischer]

Due to an issue with the same "deadline" that was being challenged here.

 

 

But if he was "nominated" much earlier why couldn't they get the papers filed in Texas?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

But if he was "nominated" much earlier why couldn't they get the papers filed in Texas?

 

Probably the same reason the Republicrats couldn't.

 

Not being a clairvoyant, I couldn't tell you WHY it happened, just that it didn't.

[Chilly]

Your argument makes ZERO sense. So you agree that ballot access is "the essence of Democracy" and "both are required" but you think its "fair" to remove the two major political parties off the ballot due to a technicality that CLEARLY was not the intent of the law. This is your idea of having "fair elections?"

 

I don't think the word "fair" means what you think it means.

 

States have already set the precedent that parties (well, apparently only 3rd parties) get thrown off the ballot due to these so-called "technicalities". Since the states have decided to apply the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law to the parties, it should apply to ALL parties.

 

Bending the rules for any party means the election, by definition, cannot be fair. No amount of caps nor words such as "clearly" in your argument can change this.

 

 

Really? Ok, Thomas Jefferson. Explain what would have happened if you had it your way and the Texas Courts said Barr was right and McCain and Obama were thrown off the ballot? Can't you even acknowledge the consequences if McCain lost the election because of this preposterous litigious, anti-democratic decision? Yeah, America.

 

To the contrary, this would be a pro-democratic decision, as it would make the established precedent apply to every entity in the group, not giving favor to one.

 

In any event, I already answered your question about what would have happened in my previous posts. Feel free to go re-read them, if you can put your internet rage beside yourself and render a moment of clarity.

 

And I'm not going to "acknowledge the consequences if McCain lost the election" as it simply wouldn't happen.

 

Ballot access laws are already extremely slanted toward the two major parties, and this is a continuing trend in that direction.

 

Oh, please. You can't possibly believe in fair elections if you would put the citizens of Texas and the nation through such nonsense. Don't forget to vote for Barr - your Grand Protector of American Rights.

 

Damn me, trying to put myself through nonsense! As a citizen of Texas, I must hate myself!

[Max Fischer]

I don't think the word "fair" means what you think it means.

 

States have already set the precedent that parties (well, apparently only 3rd parties) get thrown off the ballot due to these so-called "technicalities". Since the states have decided to apply the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law to the parties, it should apply to ALL parties.

 

Bending the rules for any party means the election, by definition, cannot be fair. No amount of caps nor words such as "clearly" in your argument can change this.

 

 

 

 

To the contrary, this would be a pro-democratic decision, as it would make the established precedent apply to every entity in the group, not giving favor to one.

 

In any event, I already answered your question about what would have happened in my previous posts. Feel free to go re-read them, if you can put your internet rage beside yourself and render a moment of clarity.

 

And I'm not going to "acknowledge the consequences if McCain lost the election" as it simply wouldn't happen.

 

Ballot access laws are already extremely slanted toward the two major parties, and this is a continuing trend in that direction.

 

 

 

Damn me, trying to put myself through nonsense! As a citizen of Texas, I must hate myself!

 

 

You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel to come up with something that makes sense. You failed.

 

"Fair" is a pretty easy definition and you still don't get it. Few but the most fringe elements agree with you. Do yourself a favor and stop defending the indefensible -- you'll simply embarrass yourself.

[Max Fischer]

Probably the same reason the Republicrats couldn't.

 

Not being a clairvoyant, I couldn't tell you WHY it happened, just that it didn't.

 

Apparently Barr is on the ballot because he was nominated sooner.

[Chilly]

You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel to come up with something that makes sense. You failed.

 

Unfortunately for you, I haven't been "scrapping" [sic] anything, nor have I failed. Simply because you say it is, doesn't make it so.

 

"Fair" is a pretty easy definition and you still don't get it.

 

Let's compare our definition of "fair elections", then.

 

Fair elections are ones that:

 

A.) Have rules that are equal for all participating entities.

B.) Has consistent enforcement for all participating entities.

 

What you support violates principle B.

 

Few but the most fringe elements agree with you.

 

You do realize that the two major parties have a vested interest in this, right?

 

Do yourself a favor and stop defending the indefensible -- you'll simply embarrass yourself.

 

Did you mean to email this to yourself? It fits perfectly.

[DC Tom]

You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel to come up with something that makes sense. You failed.

 

"Fair" is a pretty easy definition and you still don't get it. Few but the most fringe elements agree with you. Do yourself a favor and stop defending the indefensible -- you'll simply embarrass yourself.

 

No, actaully he's not. Barr didn't meet the deadline, and isn't allowed on the ballot. The Republicans and Democrats didn't meet the deadline, and they are allowed on the ballot. Barr sued to have the law applied equally. Courts ruled that it should ?NOT be applied equally.

 

And you're saying that's fair and democratic...and accusing OTHER people of not making sense?

[Max Fischer]

No, actaully he's not. Barr didn't meet the deadline, and isn't allowed on the ballot. The Republicans and Democrats didn't meet the deadline, and they are allowed on the ballot. Barr sued to have the law applied equally. Courts ruled that it should ?NOT be applied equally.

 

And you're saying that's fair and democratic...and accusing OTHER people of not making sense?

 

DC Tom, don't use the lazy tactic of putting words in my mouth. Where did I say - or even imply - it was fair to have Barr kicked off the ballot in Texas?

 

And, if indeed, Barr is off for the same violation then he should be on the ballot.

[DC Tom]

DC Tom, don't use the lazy tactic of putting words in my mouth. Where did I say - or even imply - it was fair to have Barr kicked off the ballot in Texas?

 

And, if indeed, Barr is off for the same violation then he should be on the ballot.

 

You said it was fair and democratic that the major parties should not be bound by Texas election regulations, and the courts were right to ignore the law.

 

If you'd merely claimed Barr shouldn't be on the ballot, you'd actually be less of an idiot than you actually are.

[Max Fischer]

You said it was fair and democratic that the major parties should not be bound by Texas election regulations, and the courts were right to ignoAre the law.

 

Uh, what? Way to go,Sherlock. Why do you have to be a such a dick? So, I'm an "idiot" because I believe that candidates should appear on a ballot despite bureaucratic technicalities?

 

I have said, repeatedly, in many ways, NO candidate, especially those nationally recognized, should be removed from the ballot for technical reasons because I believe (as do most Americans) that we should not disenfranchise voters for a mere technicality. It a very simple concept that few beyond the fringe of society can't understand.

 

If you'd merely claimed Barr shouldn't be on the ballot, you'd actually be less of an idiot than you actually are.

 

What are yousmoking? You brought up of Barr, I didn't. I think he should be on the ballot, so what's the problem?

 

Why do you have a problem with the notion that ALL established candidates should have ballot access and the courts should rule to have them on despite technicalities. Why do you and the other irrelevant idiots have such a problem with simple democracy?

 

So, which is it? Do you believe recognized candidates should or should not appear on the ballot of every state despite arbitrary technicalities?

[Chilly]

Why do you and the other irrelevant idiots have such a problem with simple democracy?

 

Tom isn't exactly fringe, butterball. Perhaps you should be asking yourself questions.

[Max Fischer]

Tom isn't exactly fringe, butterball. Perhaps you should be asking yourself questions.

 

He's acting the part, Fringe-Boy.

[Max Fischer]

No, actaully he's not. Barr didn't meet the deadline, and isn't allowed on the ballot.

 

Barr is on the ballot. At least according to the Libertarian Party.

[Chilly]

He's acting the part, Fringe-Boy.

 

Awesome.

 

Please, keep posting. You're rather amusing.